WI- Mussolini Had Made No Lateran Treaty With Pope?

This 1929 Treaty was of mutual benefit to both parties with the Vatican getting recognized as its own independent entity- and the not-so-subtle 'understanding' that since it owed its very existence to him, the Vatican was not only to recognize Italy and Mussolini as its undisputed Head of Government but also was NOT to criticize anything Mussolini or his Allies did.

IMO, no doubt the Invasion of Ethiopia, the Libyan Concentration Camps on Mussolini's part [and, of course, the Holocaust on Hitler's part] were given Papal blind eyes [at least] due to this treaty so I'm wondering if there may have been some kind of moral or ethical protests on the Popes' parts re the above atrocities and others had Mussolini NOT recognized the Vatican's sovereignty over its decidedly reduced territory. I recognize that there WERE individual priests, nuns and other Catholic clergy who DID resist, protest and protect persecuted folks at the risk of their lives and freedom during that timeframe but it seems they did so on their own initiatives rather than due to enacting official policy. Still, I wonder if the lack of a treaty would have made a difference.
 
the not-so-subtle 'understanding' that since it owed its very existence to him, the Vatican was not only to recognize Italy and Mussolini as its undisputed Head of Government but also was NOT to criticize anything Mussolini or his Allies did.

It this your opinion or do you have a source that put forward this "understanding" of what was the effect of the Lateran Treaty? By the way have you read the Lateran Treaty? For those who would like to read it here is a link: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/treaty.htm
 
The Catholic Church didn't not respond b/c of the Lateran Treaty. They know as well as we do that Mussolini's not going to march on the Vatican. The Church didn't respond because it was, and is, a political animal. It's entire existence has been about squaring the circle between temporal and spiritual authority (and self-preservation of course). The church had its fingers burned too many times in fights with secular authority so it erred on the side of sotto voce.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
This 1929 Treaty was of mutual benefit to both parties with the Vatican getting recognized as its own independent entity- and the not-so-subtle 'understanding' that since it owed its very existence to him, the Vatican was not only to recognize Italy and Mussolini as its undisputed Head of Government but also was NOT to criticize anything Mussolini or his Allies did.

IMO, no doubt the Invasion of Ethiopia, the Libyan Concentration Camps on Mussolini's part [and, of course, the Holocaust on Hitler's part] were given Papal blind eyes [at least] due to this treaty so I'm wondering if there may have been some kind of moral or ethical protests on the Popes' parts re the above atrocities and others had Mussolini NOT recognized the Vatican's sovereignty over its decidedly reduced territory. I recognize that there WERE individual priests, nuns and other Catholic clergy who DID resist, protest and protect persecuted folks at the risk of their lives and freedom during that timeframe but it seems they did so on their own initiatives rather than due to enacting official policy. Still, I wonder if the lack of a treaty would have made a difference.

The Pope was literally imprisoned in the Vatican.

If the Pope decided to protest certain actions then Mussolini shuts him up in some manner.
 
The Pope was literally imprisoned in the Vatican.

If the Pope decided to protest certain actions then Mussolini shuts him up in some manner.

Literally? Citation please.

Given the fact that, especially at this point in history, "Italians" feel far more affinity to the Catholic church than they do to the Italian state, I just can't see Mussolini doing anything so obvious as shutting him up. Ignoring him, sure, but not taking action. Maybe, *maybe* he would do something monumentally stupid, shooting himself in the foot in the process, but I think it unlikely.
 
The signature of the Concordat of 1929 was pushed forward by the church rather than by the fascist party: even before his election as pope in 1922, cardinal Ratti was firmly convinced that the end of the temporal power was a blessing for the church and wanted to end the rift between the church and the Italian state. It did not hurt that Pius XI was an admirer of Mussolini, as he mentioned in an interview to a French journalist early in 1922, and strongly reaffirmed in 1926 (condemning an assassination attempt against Mussolini) and in a speech addressed to the students of the Catholic University of Milan in February 1929 ("the Man that the Providence put on our path"). It is arguable that Pius XI was more comfortable in dealing with Mussolini and the fascist party rather than with Marxism or even with the traditional liberal bourgeoisie.

I'd say that to meet the OP it must be Mussolini refusing to sign a Concordat rather than the other way around (and anyway the text of the Concordat was quite favorable to the church, in particular in economic terms but also to safeguard the rights to Catholic education and confirming the position of the Catholic church as state church).

OTOH, why Mussolini should have refused to sign? The fascist regime by 1929 was quite well in control but still the church support was nothing to sneeze at. It was a treaty fostered by a commonality of interests and practicality. The rift between church and state in Italy had gone on for almost 60 years, and it was time to heal it.

Incidentally, the pacification of Libya was carried out before the signing of the concordat (and anyway the church never ever spoke against it, same as they and all other Christian denominations never really objected to colonial wars and insurgency repression)
 
Literally? Citation please.

Given the fact that, especially at this point in history, "Italians" feel far more affinity to the Catholic church than they do to the Italian state, I just can't see Mussolini doing anything so obvious as shutting him up. Ignoring him, sure, but not taking action. Maybe, *maybe* he would do something monumentally stupid, shooting himself in the foot in the process, but I think it unlikely.

If "Italians" felt far more affinity to the Church than the State, maybe they wouldn't have joined Garibaldi in conquering the Papal States in the name of Italy, or paid attention to the Pope's condemnation of Marxist parties.

As to "literally," it was a self-imposed imprisonment--the Popes would not give the Italian state the satisfaction of recognizing their conquest of the Papal States, so they treated everything beyond St. Peter's Square as territory occupied by a hostile invader, even ceasing the Urbi et Orbi blessings.

Anyway, the only thing I imagine a "No Lateran Treaty" scenario would do would be for the Allies to restore some limited form of the Papal States (maybe including the Leonine City) as a punishment to Italy, but I doubt even that.
 
Were there any likely Papal candidates with a less friendly attitude to Mussolini? If there was a Pope with a more hostile stance towards Italy and/or fascism in general, then things might get interesting.
 
Top